> > But note that "same functionality" is one thing,
> > having "separate compilation" and "program extensibility" too
> > is another one.
>> As I said, and as is well-known, "extensibility" is a red herring in
> this context - you merely trade one dimension of extensibility for
> another one.
I am not going to fight for extensibility.
It's just that I believe
that there is a value in a direct correspondence
as opposed to a transcription.
I cite from the OOHaskell abstract:
"The [...] code [...] demonstrates that OO code translates
into OOHaskell in an intuition-preserving way: essentially
expression-by-expression, without requiring global transformations."
I would like to add a peer-reviewed clear reference
to the OOHaskell paper about the red herring that you mention.
I don't have such a reference. May I kindly ask you to offer
a few for selection?
Thanks,
Ralf